Posted by HisHughness on 5/1/11 9:57pm
Msg #381862

Three questions

1. Anybody have any idea why the phrase "personally known to me" is so prevalent in so many affidavits?

2. How do other SAs handle it, when it does not apply? I strike it, and have the B initial if it is in the body of the affidavit, and strike it if it is in the notarial certification.

3. What does it take to get document preparers to drop that language, which would apply in only a small percentage of transactions and which could easily be exchanged for the always correct "proved to me by satisfactory evidence?"

To me, it is just crazy that such things would persist in the most significant legal transactions that most people will enage in during their entire lives.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 5/1/11 10:01pm
Msg #381863

1. My opinion is that 30 years ago, notaries rarely checked identification. The person was either personally known to them, or, if the notary did check the person's ID, they would still indicate personally known in the certificate. You still see this in a lot of acknowledgment certificates as well.

2. I strike it, and initial it myself (as it is part of the notary certificate and therefore does not require the initials of the signer/affiant), and insert "who produced __________ as identification" as required by Florida law.

3. Don't think there is any way to get this accomplished. So many of these forms started as printed forms that were typewritten. Once computers became popular, these forms were transcribed into document files on the computer. Little by little, words were misspelled and sentences were mistranscribed or changed by unknowledgeable secretaries to the point that the form no longer complies with notary law.

Reply by topflyt on 5/1/11 10:30pm
Msg #381867

Here in California it has been stricken from the wording.
Before, if you knew the signer, you wouldn't need their I.D.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/2/11 2:34am
Msg #381875

Darned secretaries. Anyway, what about under the

No More Legaleze - Plain Language Mandate? Eliminating archaic language is one of the common sense goals, right? This truly qualifies.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 5/2/11 9:16am
Msg #381882

The "legaleze" exists for a reason

If people would actally read this "legaleze" very carefully, they would see that the wording actually makes a lot of sense, and clarifies the circumstacs of the notarial act better than the "plain language".

For example:

ARCHAIC: "Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared JOHN Q. PUBLIC, who acknowledged before me that he executed the foregoing instrument as is voluntary act and deed"

vs.

SIMPLE: "Acknowledged before me on May 2, 2011".

Now read both very carefully, and the archaic one is more clear. It clarifies what the acknowledgment consisted of, i.e. Mr. Public's declaration that he executed the document voluntarily.

Methinks these "plain language mandates" are only there to make notaries and their official acts seem less important. JMHO.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/2/11 10:51am
Msg #381890

I'm not talking about that point - I'm talking about

the continued use of the "personally known to me" element - which, when the world was small, was commonplace, but is now a rare circumstance.

BTW, the 'plain language' mandate is evident in law school training.

Reply by Jodith/WA on 5/2/11 12:01pm
Msg #381897

Re: The "legaleze" exists for a reason

Yeah, I get so many "subscribed or sworn to on _________". In Washington state, it must state who did the swearing. And so many loan docs don't give you enough room to fit in "by John Doe and Jane Doe." I end up doing a lot of really little printing.

Same way most do not have a place to write in the notary's name, yet in Washington, rules state that the notary's name must be printed or written on the certificate. So I end up squeezing my name somewhere in there, too.

Lately, I'm using more and more loose certificates because there isn't enough room to correct and still have the stamp in a legal position.

Reply by Jodith/WA on 5/2/11 11:56am
Msg #381896

I've never actually had one of these. Mine have always stated "who is personally known to me or who produced satisfactory identification" or something along those lines.

Like FlaNotary2, though, I would just cross it out and fill in the "produced ______________" statement.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/2/11 6:33am
Msg #381878

1. Because it's the law. 'Personally known' is still legally valid ID in Arkansas....so is 'or satisfactorily proven'. Possibly other states, too.

2. Because of the OR, I don't strike it. Used to, got jumped for doing so by a TC, so if you want to know which, guess I need to provide a copy of that journal page--assuming I have one because journals aren't required either. Do I think this is stupid? Yes.

3. What does it take to get something changed? Laws! Be careful what you wish for. The CA-only 'under penalty of perjury' Ack clause made its way across the country pretty fast, (at least, in loan docs) despite the fact that the CA law specifically states (paraphrasing here) other states correct Acks if taken in 'not CA' are acceptable in CA.

Agree with your last sentence. Yep. Crazy.

Reply by Shelly_FL on 5/2/11 8:33am
Msg #381880

1. "Personally known to me" is one of the two means of identifying an individual in Florida. I can only think of two instances that I have actually used this method (My brother-in-law and an old high school friend).

2. I prefer the certificates that include the ( ) before each option for indicating the method used to identify. If it is not provided, I underline "has" or "have" before the "produced ..." to show that the person was ID'd. I also use a stamp to include the form of ID presented to me or hand write it in if space is limited.

3. An act of congress!? I have given up long ago having any hope that doc preparers would see the errors of their ways. Perhaps this is one of those, "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear" cases.

Reply by BobbiCT on 5/2/11 8:58am
Msg #381881

Tradition! (Think Zero Mostel voice & song)

Standard text in a notarization block because, in many client relationship cases (lawyer, financial planner, personal banker, boss/secretary) the signer is personally known ... or will be personally known after the first few client visits.

When in the notarization block, I simply line through "or personally known to me" and put my very tiny initials next to the line through. 99.9% of the time the text "based on satisfactory identification" is included immediately before the personally known text so that I don't have to handwrite it in and initial.

You will never get that Traditional phrase dropped. That one will be more difficult to change than changing Witnesseth to "signed before me".

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/2/11 10:54am
Msg #381891

Ha! So true - not to mention "Further the Affiant Sayeth

Naught."

Reply by Jodith/WA on 5/2/11 12:03pm
Msg #381899

Re: Ha! So true - not to mention "Further the Affiant Sayeth

That one drives me crazy. Have to translate for the signer every time.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 5/2/11 12:05pm
Msg #381903

That's the way affidavits have always be written

and it is an essential part of an affidavit.

It marks the end of the statements to which the affiant is swearing.

JMHO

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/2/11 1:26pm
Msg #381915

Heehee - I always feel like I'm immitating Sylvester of

Tweedy and Sylvester fame...

Reply by jba/fl on 5/2/11 3:32pm
Msg #381936

Tweety - not the English clothing. LOL n/m

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/2/11 9:47pm
Msg #381956

Oh, how funny. Thanks for pointing that out. Of course,

Tweety.

You're so tweet. (Now I have to laugh - remembering my baby boy, asking if it was "time to go to squeep.")